Leica M7 film camera comes to an end

Leica has discontinued its M7 film camera after 16 years of service. According to the Red Dot Forum, which is run by the Miami Leica store, the last of the M7 standard and ‘a la Carte’ bodies has been built and no more will be made. The Miami store lists the camera as ‘Out of Stock’ but models will remain in circulation elsewhere until they are sold through. The UK Leica stores have stock listed at £3900 and New York at $4795 – the same price as the Leica MP and £/$100 more than the M-A film bodies.

The M7 caused a bit of a stir when it arrived with features that required battery power to operate – particularly the electronic shutter. Without power users are restricted to shutter speeds of 1/60sec and 1/125sec, whereas models before the M7 had used an entirely mechanical shutter and could therefore continue working in the event of a flat battery- or no battery.

The M7 also brought aperture priority to the M range, a feature that has found a place in a number of M bodies, but not all, since, and it was the first M to feature a DX code reader to automatically set the ISO for the internal metering system by ‘reading’ a code printed on the film cassette.

Ironically, while the slightly modern M7 will descend in to history with its new-fangled electro-wizardry, two perhaps less helpful film models will continue the previous traditions of fully mechanical shutters and all-manual operation. The MP and the M-A remain on the product list, though the MP seems to be widely listed as Out-of-Stock in official Leica stores.

Leica M7 Film Camera Discontinued

Today marks the passing of a legend, the venerable Leica M7. First introduced in 2002 as the follow-up to the M6, the Leica M7 brought a more modern aperture priority mode and electronically-controlled shutter to a classic mechanical M design. The M7 was also the first M camera with a built-in DX code reader for ISO detection. The camera has been well-loved for over 15 years, but all good things must come to an end.

Effective immediately, Leica will no longer produce any more new M7 cameras, in black or silver. There still might be a handful in stock at various dealers, but once sold out, no more will be coming from Wetzlar. The same goes for the a la Carte program. No M7-based configurations will be accepted or built for customers wanting a custom camera.

While this is certainly sad news for analog lovers, fear not. The Leica MP and Leica M-A film cameras remain current items in the catalog and will continue to be produced.

Comments

My greatest regret is having to sell my Leica film camera equipment because clients demanded worse image quality from the then below par and overpriced digital equipment on offer. All that digital stuff has long been scrapped as worthless while the sold equipment would be so much older but still working and worth more than I sold it for! Brave new world!

I have the M2, 3, 4, and 6. Fun to use. I also have a half dozen screwmounts, lovable despite bad ergonomics. The lenses mate up a lot better with the Canon rangefinders of that era. It is neat to use the Leica lenses with adaptors on modern Fuji and Sony digitalis. I don’t know what fates await these cameras and the other hundred film classics I own when go to the big darkroom in the sky. My kids don’t want them and my wife can’t tell them apart and she threatens a big garage sale with cameras going for $5 each. I also have a few Zeiss Contax, that I love. It was a sad day when Costco got out of the film developing business.

My first 35mm was a Konica auto S2, i bought for $35 in a Vietnam PX. GReat ergonomics and a sharp lens.

Which happens to be the best film camera ever made...I'm truly happy I got mine from a "gone digital" student, way back around 2010. it is incredibly good, even though Nikon wouldn't give 2 hoots about it.

As a status symbol these are great. I'd love to own one and if I did I'd never sell it and be proud to show it around. However, as an investment in collectables, it's useless. There are way too many out there for the price to ever appreciate. Of course, if you had a one off special edition in mint condition, that's another matter entirely.

As I said earlier, there are two kind of Leica gear owners: collectors and actual users. The analog Leica cameras which I bought used and use in my photography have increased in sales value 30-40% since 2016. I have no intention to sell them, but so far I hit two birds with one stone - excellent cameras for me to work with 35 mm film and no virtual depreciation in the original investment cost.

My greatest regret is having to sell my Leica film camera equipment because clients demanded worse image quality from the then below par and overpriced digital equipment on offer. All that digital stuff has long been scrapped as worthless while the sold equipment would be so much older but still working and worth more than I sold it for! Brave new world!

One thing that has always fascinated me about the comments on Leica related posts is the apparent lack of understanding of opportunity cost. Leicas depreciate far slower (if at all) than other cameras, and reach a price floor far higher. What you really 'spend' on a camera is the price minus the resell. In this sense Leicas actually represent a strong value proposition.

In actuality, most photographers have spent across the years on multiple upgrades the same as a Leica user spent the first time without needing to. Obviously if you need the most up to date technology then that's that. But for those shooting for fun, buying a Leica, using it for a few years, and then reselling and buying something different, will actually save you money compared to if the initial purchase was a different camera.

As earlier comments already mentioned, there is a difference between analog and digital Leica cameras. Even digital Leica cameras hold their value astonishingly well - for example the M9, IMO a fully outdated model but still sells for about $2K used which is unreasonably high for what it delivers compared to todays standard. Newer digital Leica cameras (and also the analog MP and MA) have such high initial upfront cost that depreciation kicks in hard even if you could still sell the camera for 50-60% of its original value a few years later. Analog older M cameras on the other hand didn't depreciate at all comparing used prices a few years ago - the ones I bought increased in value 30-40%.

Cool looking camera but hardly significant among the other Leica film cameras. I had a chance years ago to buy a second hand M7 kit with 50mm Summicron lens in the original box with all the original papers for $2500 but passed on it. It might have been a great investment considering it could be worth as much as $4000 now but meh. Leica cameras are great for those who can afford them. I am happy enough with my Nikon F3HP for film and Df for digital.

Certainly "usable" is subjective. Some wouldn't dare shoot above ISO 6400 on the Df, but I have had very acceptable results at ISO 12800 and even ventured up to ISO 25600 a few times! It's a remarkable Nikon sensor.

Spoken like a photographer, as opposed to a collector of expensive jewelry ;) Aperture priority is nice, but the Minolta CLE has had aperture priority too since 1980, is as durable and ergonomic, is more compact, costs a fraction of the price so you are not as afraid to carry it around, takes the same lenses (and usually comes with a highly prized but relatively low priced Leica quality slightly vintage lens), will take you the exact same photos, and is fast appreciating in value as time goes on. Is the Leica body really worth several thousand dollars more?

Probably Leica lovers could not cope with the fact that replacement Leica branded battery was another $5,000 and they stopped using camera once battery was gone.So fully mechanical is way cheaper to use!Actually 5000 cheaper :)))

Imagine conversation in camera store.Ohhh Geoooorge, my Laiika camera battery is dead. Do you have Laaaaica branded repacement batterryyyy?Sure Paul. We have off brands as well. Off brands are $5 a piece while Laaaica are $5,000 a piece!Geoooooooorge you know i will be ridiculed by my fellow country club members for using off brand battery! But it is a bit to maaach to pay $5k for Laaaaica branded one. I suppoooose i would need to stop using this one and fo back to my Laiiiica M4 Would you like to buy Laaaaica branded lightmeters Paaaaul?No Geooooorge! I will be just clicking shutter with old film.I do not know how to take photos anyway!

I witness conversation at Newtonville camera between Leica buyer and store employee when the buyer was demanding LEICA BRANDED screen protector regardless the price!He was asking them to sell damn screen protector or order one for him no matter how much it costs.He said he is OK to pay $100, $200 or whatever it takes to get Leica branded one.He refused $5 generic screen protector as an insult towards himself and his camera!He must have been fine photographer.

@Rensol: I don't excuse the buyer's behavior, but there are pretty much two categories of people with Leica gear: one uses it and adds whatever is most practical even if it comes from a different brand. The other ones are collectors and investors in gear - they see the item as a potential reseller, so they like to have everything mint and with the same brand name. The latter category doesn't even care a lot about photography often, but they make the biggest part of Leica's camera and lens business .

No, the M6 was the Germany-Portugal made version of the M4-P, built with same (Canadian) criteria: uni-block mechanics, plastic parts, sample based QC, and as a consequence disregarded by Leica die-hard purists.The best film RF camera made by Leica is the M4 (or the M5 if you like its idiosyncrasies) both built by using almost artisanal procedures (compare the wind lever of a M4 and a M6 and you'll see), those who brought Leica near to bankrupt, ceasing RF production and moving SLR production to Japan (Minolta). When they resurrected and moved the production of the M series back to Europe (M6), they adopted the same less expensive production techniques utilized in Canada, but didn't lowered the price: the rest is history (and still is today).

Some of what Tical says is correct. The M3/M2/M4/M5 cameras are considered the best in terms of consistent quality and smooth operation. Part of this has to do with more brass parts and fewer steel ones that were deemed necessary for use with the dreadful M4-2 winder.

I'm not aware of rangefinder production ever ceasing, except during World War II, and no SLR production ever took place in Japan. Parts were purchaed from Minolta and assembled in Portugal. In the days when they tracked Q.C. numbers for Wetzlar, Midland and Porto, it's true that Germany scored the highest, followed by Portugal (different products, of course) and Midland came in third, but not by much.

I consider the M6 probably one of the best all-round M series camera meaning that it is IMO just right with the features it includes. Main issue with the M6: rangefinder flare patch - it can be annoying at times. The M7 already was improved in this regard, but only the newer M-P fully avoids it (you can replace the M6 patch with the M-P one but it costs >$250). Older M cameras before the M6 also don't have it.

@ARWell, I had to condense the history of a company (and what a company) in a few lines.Actually, Leica announced mid 70’s, after the largely unsuccessful M5, they wouldn’t produce the M line anymore: back then the SLR market was mature, and cameras the likes of Nikon F2, Canon F1 and Pentax LX replaced the Ms in the bags of many pros. Unexpectedly, this provoked quite a fuss and many pros vocally asked for the production to go on.

When the Canadian distributor proposed to the Leica managers to move the production of the M series to Canada, with more cheap materials and less strict procedures (as in “like any other Japanese camera made back then”) they asked for 1000 (if memory serves) pre-order contracts; he returned with ten times more and, yes, the result was the faulty M4-2 (light leaks, shutter curtain breakage and frequent internal gear jams), soon followed by a more carefully made M4-P (substantially a M6 without internal exposure meter).

@AR With regard to the R series you are right: after the absurdly expensive SL2 (possibly the best SLR Leica ever produced), part - a large part - of the components of the R4 have been produced in Japan by Minolta and assembled in Europe. This has been true till the R7 (included) and changed with the R8 and R9: too late, since digital was behind the corner already.

As an aside, given that this camera required batteries... How do photographers who are going 'off grid' for extended periods currently manage? Is it just a matter of bringing enough batteries or are more creative solutions employed?

Unless the Leica are using a lot more battery than its analog brothers and sisters, it can go a looooooong way on one! I have a couple of Minoltas SRT and XG that are still running with the battery they came in with from their eBay seller. I doubt they were changed between the 70's and now, specially considering they're Hg batteries that have been illegal to sell for ages.

I get about 100 films per battery change from my M7. If you are used to changing film every 36 frames then carrying a couple of button cells is hardly onerous. The M7 is my most used camera, and the batteries are a non issue.

As an aside, the M7 is by far the most practical Leica film camera that was made. It’s biggest failing was that it was introduced at least 10 years too late...

Honestly, good riddance. The only real Leicas worth their price are fully mechanical ones. Those are real timeless masterpieces, much like good, hand-built mechanical watches. That's where Leica is and where it should have stayed. I'd even get one if I could afford it, out of pure appreciation for it as a piece of art and precise engineering. Also, you could pass one to your kids and it would still hold as much or even more value.

Once you place cheap electronics into a mechanical marvel, you are ensuring its obsolescence. And M7 was the one who started the transition from "expensive, but incredible pieces of timeless mechanical art" to "overpriced pseudo-elite tat bought by people who think they are classy but really just don't know how to flush money down the drain".

"Cheap electronics"? Camera makers wanted to prove to pros and enthusiasts that electronically controlled cameras were no less reliable than their mechanical predecessors and so the electronics used were anything but cheap.

My 30 years old Pentax Program works fine, with all its buttons and tiny LCD display in the viewfinder still doing their job. My late 70's Nikon FE shutter is still working with perfected timing and the meter is still dead on.

Nikon F3s from the early 80's with their shutters still marching on. Going back to the 60's, Pentax 6X7 were also equipped with electronically controlled shutter - and if not abused will still take pictures today. Even the humble Yashica GSM and Olympus 35SP can still take pictures automatically if well maintained.

Hey, even my grandfather's camera - the automatic 1964 Konica EE-Matic can still take well exposed pictures. I am not using it often due to film advance problems -- a MECHANICAL defect!

Correct in saying that the fully mechanical Leica M cameras are the best and most reliable ones. Starting with the M6, cheaper components were added which caused for example the sometimes annoying rangefinder patch flare - this issue alone should have caused a recall at the time. I have the M3, M6, and M7, and each of them have their pros and cons. The M7 is well made, too - the flare issue of the former M6 version was mostly corrected in the M7, but I rarely use all the added automatic modes. I also find the more simple ISO wheel of the M6 better than the more complex M7 ISO wheel. Just looking at the viewfinder, the 0.91x magnification of the M3 and its clarity of focus is best of all.

Wow, that is a lot of rubbish, the type of drivel you often read in Dpreview comments from the "photographers" who for some odd reason find it gratifying to denigrate Leica. No one forces you to buy a Leica. Not interested? Move on to another brand.

I don't blame you for thinking like this based on a lot of today's planned obsolesence devices. But quality electronics will last longer than anything mechanical. After all, no moving parts in the electronics, so they don't wear out unless shorted, unlikely in a camera, or corroded by external factors such as water or leaking batteries. Electronics in my cameras (and even my TV, CD player, etc.) from the 80s and 90s work like new. Even in today's devices, it is mostly not the electronics that wears out but the moving parts (e.g., laptop fan will break and only then will the electronics melt).

I'm not sure if that is a sustainable claim. Most electronics, quality or otherwise, are controlled by software which is as we know is prone to failure in itself, and when it is updated. Notwithstanding that electronic elements of cameras often fail, not simply on the basis of use, but because they are dependent on may other elements that in combination may fail. This has been seen in cameras over the last few years. Well crafted, properly engineered, mechanics will last a considerable time, hence my Leica M6 has been used for years without need for repair beyond a service every now and again. I have an M10 as well, which is considerably more temperamental.

I'm not a luddite, I use cameras with electronics both digital and film, but the idea that electronics are less prone to failure than mechanical items is at best spurious. The example of a laptop is also questionable - electronic parts fail on a regular basis, anyone who has had a few will tell you that.

I agree with Melchiorum. Just look at prices of a used cameras. The market is overrun with used leica digital cameras, but film ones are higher in price (consider how much you pay for Leica M8 with a cropped sensor 10mpx nodays) and more rare. Leica M7 also appeared with some flaws. DX reader is known to no work. And a viewfiner also was upgraded latter to eliminate problems.

What have broke hipsters ever done to deserve the hate? I mean I see awful rich millennials (and their parents) every day deserving to be taken down a notch, and they can afford Leicas. But this cultural piling on to broke hipsters? Really?

M7 is without question an excellent camera but probably by many Leica fans as something less because it is not a purely mechanical Leica so it is not an end of an era - it never was, it simply signified a fact that with all those noises on rising film users - not nearly as many thought or hope they are. However, many film shooters can still have a large collection of classic Leica M at much lower price which makes continuous production of M7 with very little demand. Leica still has the MP and MA so it is not an end to Leica's commitment to the traditional user. M7 was a strategic move to meet the demand of some user for more automatic M camera but that role was already took over by digital M models for most part. I still have my M7 though never use it since 2007 and I am not expecting the 2nd price to go up in mid to long term. MP/MA is much better positioned for the die-hard film user or camera collector who caught after a nostalgic photographic tool.

Only that you were able to get very good used M7 cameras for much less than new MP and MA cameras from Leica. Parts aside which might make it now more difficult to repair the M7, I believe this is another (hidden) reason why Leica might have stopped making them: in house competition with the higher price models MP and MA.

True, in many ways the inherit cost for mass production electronics is that it cannot be or very difficult to get repaired while mechanics could be costly to manufacture but it is a lot easier to get repaired at a cost that most often acceptable although not necessarily cheap. The mindset in electronic age is to be advanced along the technology and in mechanical age is built for life time.

It is always funny to me that people think they need a Leica film camera to shoot "street" photos. Just because some photographers chose them decades ago does not mean they are a good choice to use today. It seems more about keeping a tradition alive than concentrating on the photo. I guess it is one way to justify the cost.

"Just because some photographers chose them decades ago does not mean they are a good choice to use today." True. Neither does it mean they are a bad choice, just particular tools with their own characteristics.

"I guess it is one way to justify the cost." If you drive a car, or wear shoes that cost twice as much as my car or shoes, would my demands that you justify the cost of your car and shoes be interesting? Or just a pain the a*se?

its just a very small very quiet interchangeable lens system and for certain things - wide angle to small tele urban shooting for example - the design has never been beaten in 90 years. The mount itself is also pretty cheap to get into thanks secondhand market - you can get a secondhand CL or Bessa for just a few hundred dollars and new lenses from Voigtlander are very fairly priced and they have some really interesting ones in their catalogue; ultra fast 50mms, rectilinear super wides etc. I have a Cl, 3 Rokkors, and a 21mm and whole thing cost me about $1300 - $1300 is still $1300 but that's a full system from 21,28,40 to 90mm and i can fit camera and lens in one pocket and a spare lens in another and shoot all day without a bag.

I've been a professional photographer for more than 40 years. I have shot a lot of street photos too. A Leica M7 would not be my choice for street photography. A much faster digital camera with a zoom lens and high frame rate would shoot rings around an M7 under unpredictable situations.

If we are making a car analogy... one would be at a disadvantage today driving Jim Clark's old F1 car in an F1 race today. Likewise shoes have improved for sports too. If you just want to drive an outdated car or wear fancy shoes, that is another matter.

But I am looking at a camera as providing photographic performance and the M7 is pretty slow and limited. That is fine if you want to work slowly or don't mind carrying a lot of lenses and missing shots because you weren't ready. My Sony A6000 has an 18-200 on it for street shots and my A7RII has a 24-200. Sometimes I use the A6000 at 10fps or roll video. Plus I shoot time lapse with it.

These videos will give you an idea of how I shoot still and video on the street to tell a story.

totally agree Alan - if you want to shoot film though then for interchangeable urban systems its never been beaten (for me anyway) - it can be even more rapid than digital too once if you set zone focus up and ride the shutter speed dial as light changes you can get your shot before a digital autofocus has found its target. Having viewfinder bigger than frame lines means you can see whats coming into your shot too so again you have an advantage. There's a a hell of a lot disadvantages too though, especially over digital, but it can still be a hellishly fast one shot system

I used Leicas & other RF cameras and preferred Nikons for street shooting with film. The bigger frame line stuff only applies to 35 (slightly,) 50, 75, and 90. Frame lines are inaccurate so seeing outside the view is pretty stupid since you need to frame very loosely.

I want precise framing and can quickly zoom wider if I need to see more for any reason and crop if necessary. Seeing something slightly outside of the frame just before it gets into the frame will not generally provide enough timing for me anyway and I never needed that. My other eye sees the scene.

Telephoto VF is lousy -> just a cropped view so it is hard to judge someone's expression. A separate VF is needed for wider than 28mm.

You don't "need" a Leica M7 (or any other luxury item).An Olympus 35SP/LC/UC or a Konica S2 (can be had for 150-300USD in good to exc condition) will get you about the same results.An Olympus 35RD or the Konica S3 will also give you excellent results in a smaller package.They are not well built as the Leica, have a fixed lens (not an big issue in street photography), rangefinder is not as good (but you will zone focus most of the time), but they will all give you the HCB experience for a fraction of the price.

i have nikon d8XX, fuji XT20, Panasonic GX85(which is on ebay today). I love fuji layout(my personal preference). I shoot slow and when i am not shooting landscapes i am almost using primes. I see leica will be great travel camera may be once i make more money where these kind of purchases does not matter...

@apestorm, well that's exactly it, you can get the same ergonomics and exactly the same photos from a CL or CLE for a fraction of the price of a Leica M series, which basically undermines the justification for the latter (and was basically why Leica cancelled the CL way back and never made anything similar again; people saw that the value was a mirage, and Leica didn't want them to.)

There are a couple of catches with CL tho - being so small then focusing is less accurate especially with fast teles and its noisier than an M. For me the smallest size outweighs everything else as I hate having a camera bag in city and a CL and a couple of japanese pancake lens is the limit for a jacket or trouser pocket (and budget!) for me - but for someone else they will have different priorities (and budgets) so a more accurate M and a faster bigger piece of glass is where they might go.

If people think Leicas are expensive then they'd have a heart attack at Alpa and Silvestri's prices for examples. You want a European made camera then you are paying for the privilege no matter who the company is.

MyReality, the Mamiya 7 is a 6x7 format. If Leica are famous for anything, then it's first and foremost the 3x2 format. If any camera is the 'medium format Leica', it's the Fuji GW690 - i, ii &iii (check them out, they are great cameras), otherwise known as the "Texas Leicas".

@Richard in UK - I will give you that one on technical grounds. I guess I should have placed "" around -the medium format "Leica" - even though Leica has "".I was referring to technical quality of the body and lenses and not the format.I almost bought the Fuji GW6900, but bought the Mamiya 7 many years ago due to size and weight, because I was travelling.I still use it with Velvia 50 for large prints.

I had a Mamiya 7ii, a fine camera. But just couldn't get used to the 6x7 format - not quite square but neither recognisably rectangular. Leica invented the 3:2 format, and it has become the default for stills photography because it replicates the way we see.

You can get a used Fuji GW690 on ebay for around £500. The 3:2 format with MF quality. But if you like the 6x7, then go with it - it's all about the pictures.

Tedolf, "The 3:2 format does not replicate the way we see at all." Well, it's a problematic issue because I'm not aware of any decisive study that proves my assertion. But over a hundred years later, the 3:2 format (first introduced by Leica) is still the standard format for stills. That has to say something - no?

"The 3:2 format was an accident from turning cinematic 35mm film sideways." So what - the point is that it created a standard which endures today.

Your conclusion does not match up with history. The 35mm sideways format (now so called full frame) didn't even exist for the first 60 years of photography. It was introduced in the 1930s but was not a best seller until the 1980 being eclipsed by half frame and 24mm square format from the 50's through the 70's. In the 90's, APS film, and then APS c and h digital formats dominated and still do, probably by a factor of 10 to 1.

So, for most of photographic history, the 35mm sideways format has not been dominant and it still is not today.

You say “It was introduced in the 1930s but was not a best seller until the 1980” – wrong.“The first 35 mm film Leica prototypes were built by Oskar Barnack at Ernst Leitz Optische Werke, Wetzlar, in 1913. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_Camera#Leica_cameras“Although the Retina was comparatively inexpensive, 35 mm cameras were still out of reach for most people and rollfilm remained the format of choice for mass-market cameras. This changed in 1936 with the introduction of the inexpensive Argus A and to an even greater extent in 1939 with the arrival of the immensely popular Argus C3. Although the cheapest cameras still used rollfilm, 35 mm film had come to dominate the market by the time the C3 was discontinued in 1966.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_camera#35_mm

The Leica iiic, the first really sucessful Leica was introduced in 1940. THe IIIb was not a big seller and it was not until the IIIc that everybody started making clones. Up until that date, larger formats way outsold the 35mm "miniature" format. As for 35mm "film" dominating the market by 1966 that is true, but only because that was still the height of the half frame craze which use 35mm film. The Olympus PEN half frame cameras outsold all the various brands of 35mm SRL cameras combined and there were many half frame brands besides Olympus.

Finally, you must admit that even today, APS dominates full frame by an order of magnitude.

Bottom line, "full frame" 35mm format was only dominate for about two decades at most.

Good, and which contemporary cameras sport an APS-H sensor; as opposed to the proliferation of APS-C which is 3:2?

Come on Tedolf - you got wrapped up in the 'full-frame' argument because you have an agenda. Your crusade is noted, but I'm talking about format (throughout this thread), not FF vs APSC. You got your Knickers in a twist because you somehow saw your choices being challenged.

The thread here was only discussing the shape of the pictures. That's all.All the best

Maybe Leica realised that if someone is going to spend ££££s aschewing the convenience of digital, that they’ll be more inclined to go the whole hog and deride any kind of help at all, not even a built-in meter.

The Leica M-A should come with a free hairshirt and birch whipping cane, so one can properly punish oneself for one’s art.

@ Nikoncanonfan: pity... I have a Spotmatic cadaver (previous owner must have dropped it over the extended rewind lever so it tore off, by the look of it), Could have grafted its prism and have a perfectly good K1000 :)

Without boring the life out of everyone, apparently it’s due to old foam padding in prisms deteriorating and giving off a gas which causes silvering to lift so all Nikon F And F2 plain prisms, for instance, need this padding changed every 15 to 20 years to prevent this happening, but other cameras like the Nikon fm2 don’t have foam padding in the prism. I’ve seen Olympus OM cameras with this problem too. What I can’t get out of repairers, is will modern padding be more ‘inert’? No one seems to know

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.